Got a Beef With The Democratic Party? Post it here!

Just read the fucking court decision yourself. It is plainly a narrow, circumscribed decision, not the wholesale dismissal you're claiming it to be.

He claims he did read it. Though I'm likewise completely beside myself trying to come up with a way to read it that supports his interpretation. Some citations would be helpful in that regard I'm sure. Maybe we're both wrong.

No, you're both right, at least insofar as saying that the ruling does not purport to do away with "indefinite" detention. Even if it were a ruling on the merits, as opposed to a Preliminary injunction, it still wouldn't do that.

Not that it's a meaningless opinion as such matters go, but if you take the view that US law as written and practiced from 2001 on permits indefinite detention, those laws have not been affected in any significant way except that this decision criticizes a relatively recent expansion of extant law.

DrPizza wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, I'm still going to trust journalists, who are reviewed by editors and so on,

lol! What are you fucking talking about? You linked to fucking HuffPo for god's sake.

Seriously. Memo to Chia: don't trust the Huffington Post for trenchant analysis of legal issues. Reviewed by editors? Facts checked? Yeah, you should trust a publication to get it right on clearly and correctly interpreting the "legalese" found in a court opinion, when that publication starts the second paragraph of an article about the ruling by attributing it to the wrong court. Apparently neither the writer nor the editor (if any) were capable of reading the caption at the top of the first page of the decision that their article described and even linked. But I'm sure they were extra careful about getting the rest of it right.

----------

Extra late edit:As this is currently the last post in the thread, I edit to add one further observation that I didn't make late last night.

While, as Chia suggests, perhaps this ruling indicates that "our courts still work," that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the Democratic party, which is what this thread is ostensibly about. That's true as a general proposition, given that the judiciary is a separate, non-political branch of government. But it's especially true when the particulars of this circumstance are considered. The statute at issue here is new as of 2011, and passed (as part of a much larger piece of legislation) with the support of Democrats, including in the Senate where Democrats hold a majority. Then it was signed into law by President Obama.

I hasten to add that it's not particularly compelling to say that Democrats voting in favor of this legislation shouldn't be held responsible for it because it was part of some larger legislation and they were either unaware of the provision or held their nose and voted in favor based on a need to pass the NDAA. And it would be particularly unavailing to say that President Obama was unaware of the provision or expressed disagreement with prevailing policy and law regarding military detentions: he issued a signing statement directly addressing this specific provision. While that statement reads nicely at first blush, the most charitable interpretation is that his administration takes the position that the law reiterates the military detention powers that were already available ante. Of course, for the reasons pointed out by Judge Forrest, that's a ridiculous way to interpret the law. In any case, it's a position that's rendered meaningless by the last portion of the signing statement, in which President Obama offers an empty and tautological reassurance:

Quote:

My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the law

At best, that's needlessly redundant with the first part of the statement described above, so why add it unless it means something more? At worst, it's contradictory, merely reassuring everyone that the Obama administration will comply with a law that Judge Forrest just enjoined as unconstitutional.

What's funny about the signing statement is that the administration took the position that this legal provision, even though it addresses a slightly different subject and uses different words, is redundant with existing law and therefore meaningless. Wait, that's... sort of like the signing statement itself.

Which was something of my point. That even if Chia were correct about the court decision, while apparently unlikely and subsequently assuredly not, it made no difference at all to the central criticism of the Democratic Party. To invalidate the criticism leveled at the Democratic Party there never should have been a reason to have a case such as this one move through the courts at all. Because the Democrats wouldn't have endorsed, passed, and then defended garbage like the NDAA, and/or specifically § 1021 as it pertains here.

That's because the foes list has a size limit. As you add more people to it, once you hit a limit, the oldest entries fall off the list... or do they?

I've actually only got two people on mine... when it works.

Then the system must be auto-removing them from your "foes" list as soon as it figures out you've put those people on there simply for pointing out unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about, when you're outright lying about having read an original source, or have grossly misinterpreted it and refuse to provide citations to support your interpretation.

Obama... was angry when informed that the first drone strike after he took office had killed innocent Pakistanis. But one of the measures the administration embraced to prevent future innocent casualties was to embrace a method of counting combatants that would rope in more innocents.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the Times reports.

I hate it too, but you make it sound like the GOP would be different. At least I'm sure that Obama won't assassinate gays and atheists. I can't be so sure with the current GOP party.

Sure he is, he's expanding the role and secrecy of the Executive while reducing its accountability to such a degree that basically all the "legal" tools will be in place for the GOP to go right on assassinating gays and atheists once they inevitably land in office. You'll be able to thank Obama for that, the same way you can thank Clinton for setting up the shadow-banking shit storm.

Democrats are able to get away with excesses that surpass Republicans precisely because dissent from the left all but vanishes. Thus creating a condition of there being no institutional *and* no political accountability.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation is a "common sense approach" to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.

In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates "fusion centers" where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.

"We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we've put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking," she said.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation is a "common sense approach" to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.

In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates "fusion centers" where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.

"We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we've put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking," she said.

Jackie Speier is my Representative, so I looked into this... and I actually don't think I have much of a problem with it.

Also from the article you linked:

Quote:

Transit riders probably won't see more TSA agents in subways or bus stops, though, Speier said. The expanded TSA role falls more on analysts, she said.

`(f) Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization-`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall make it a priority to assign officers and intelligence analysts under this section from the Department, including the Transportation Security Administration, to participating State and urban area fusion centers located in high-risk jurisdictions with mass transit systems in order to enhance the security of such mass transit systems by assisting Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities in identifying, investigating, and otherwise interdicting persons, weapons, and contraband that pose a threat to homeland security.`(2) MASS TRANSIT INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTS- When performing the responsibilities described in subsection (d), officers and intelligence analysts assigned to participating State and urban area fusion centers under this section shall have, as a primary responsibility, the creation of mass transit intelligence products that--`(A) assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in deploying their resources most efficiently to help detect and interdict terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and contraband at mass transit systems of the United States;`(B) promote more consistent and timely dissemination of mass transit security-relevant information among jurisdictions with mass transit systems; and`(C) enhance the Department's situational awareness with respect to the threat of acts ofterrorism at or involving mass transit systems of the United States.'.

I don't know how much "make it a priority" actually means in practice, but making sure the TSA is coordinating and sharing information with e.g. BART Police seems a valid sentiment.

I take Amtrak pretty frequently up and down the northeast corridor. And for some reason, the Acela (the faster, more expensive train) always seems to have a TSA gate inspection. The cheaper trains never do. I've often wondered if this just reflects the agency putting on a display for the elected officials who take Amtrak (Acela, naturally).

I take Amtrak pretty frequently up and down the northeast corridor. And for some reason, the Acela (the faster, more expensive train) always seems to have a TSA gate inspection. The cheaper trains never do. I've often wondered if this just reflects the agency putting on a display for the elected officials who take Amtrak (Acela, naturally).

That sucks.

One of the reasons we used to take Acela was because you could basically show up at the last minute, get on, and leave. It was literally faster (assuming no breakdowns or delays in NYC) to take the train from Boston to Wilmington when we would go to visit my inlaws, than it was to fly. (door to door)

Plus it was *way* more comfortable than flying. The business class car was quite nice, and about the same cost as a plane ticket in coach. (this was around 2000-2002)

I take Amtrak pretty frequently up and down the northeast corridor. And for some reason, the Acela (the faster, more expensive train) always seems to have a TSA gate inspection. The cheaper trains never do. I've often wondered if this just reflects the agency putting on a display for the elected officials who take Amtrak (Acela, naturally).

That sucks.

One of the reasons we used to take Acela was because you could basically show up at the last minute, get on, and leave. It was literally faster (assuming no breakdowns or delays in NYC) to take the train from Boston to Wilmington when we would go to visit my inlaws, than it was to fly. (door to door)

Plus it was *way* more comfortable than flying. The business class car was quite nice, and about the same cost as a plane ticket in coach. (this was around 2000-2002)

Oh, the convenience and comfort is 99% the same if not better (the gate inspection is apparently "random" and useless), but the "security" is a relatively new development. The real negative change is from the days before 9/11, when most non-Metroliner/Acela trains on the NEC were unreserved. Meaning that you didn't even have to change your ticket to hop on the next train.

I take Amtrak pretty frequently up and down the northeast corridor. And for some reason, the Acela (the faster, more expensive train) always seems to have a TSA gate inspection. The cheaper trains never do. I've often wondered if this just reflects the agency putting on a display for the elected officials who take Amtrak (Acela, naturally).

That sucks.

One of the reasons we used to take Acela was because you could basically show up at the last minute, get on, and leave. It was literally faster (assuming no breakdowns or delays in NYC) to take the train from Boston to Wilmington when we would go to visit my inlaws, than it was to fly. (door to door)

Plus it was *way* more comfortable than flying. The business class car was quite nice, and about the same cost as a plane ticket in coach. (this was around 2000-2002)

Oh, the convenience and comfort is 99% the same if not better (the gate inspection is apparently "random" and useless), but the "security" is a relatively new development. The real negative change is from the days before 9/11, when most non-Metroliner/Acela trains on the NEC were unreserved. Meaning that you didn't even have to change your ticket to hop on the next train.

The TSA has been increasing their presence. I have seen them screening for non-Acela trains, and NY subway as well. I think the general plan is slow increase of a presence till it's mandatory. Makes me want to puke.

Well, I'm of the opinion that the TSA just needs to be abolished, so I see any extension of it as unnecessary and wasteful

I don't really understand this.

I think searching people before they get onto planes (at a minimum, metal detectors and baggage X-rays) is a worthwhile endeavour (and something we've been doing for decades). The search policies used, and the quality standards applied, should be uniform (or at least, I can see no reason for it not to be uniform). There should be consistent, well-defined procedures for coordinating with other law-enforcement agencies (both federal and local) to improve responses to specific threats. So why not have a singular federal agency to handle it?

Because we don't need an entire federal agency that only exists to handle about two or three small (however sensational) threats a decade.

And don't/didn't we already have Port Police and/or Airport Police covering most terminals.Didn't need a brand new bloated Federal Agency. Could have just expanded the current security forces...but I guess that wouldn't have given the Feds more power to intrude on our lives.